Agenda item

The Panel received a report which set out the upcoming housing strategy and policy programme as an overview of the key policy and strategy documents being developed across Housing. The report was introduced by Hannah Adler, Head of Housing Strategy and Policy as set out in pages 17 to 24 of the agenda pack. The Assistant Director for Housing, Robbie Erbmann was also present for this item, along with Darren Fairclough, Head of Rehousing . The following arose during the discussion of this report:

a.    The Panel queried the extent to which the TA Discharge of Duty policy would take into account the suitability of that offer, particularly in the private rented sector, given the implications of someone making themselves intentionally homeless if they refused that offer. In response, officers acknowledged that the policy would set out what a suitable offer would look like when discharging someone into private rented accommodation. Officers also set out that there was statutory guidance around suitability of the property and also an appeals process.

b.    A member of the Panel raised concerns about rough sleepers around Tottenham Hale and the impression this have of the borough given that it was the main gateway into Tottenham. In response, officers advised that there was an updated rough sleeping strategy agreed last year. Officers agreed to get an update from the Rough Sleeping team on what action was being taken around the prevalence of rough sleepers and tents in Tottenham Hale and whether there was an officer in regular engagement with those individuals. (Action: Philip).

c.    The Panel sought assurances about the types of incentives being offered to people who held secure tenancies, to downsize their properties. It was suggested that the Council needed to offer people a personal mentor to navigate the process and provide tailored support. In response, officers advised that they were looking at the Rightsizing policy and that this would contain a range of incentives, that were broader than just offering them money. Officers advised that they were currently undertaking engagement work with some residents around this. As a follow-up the Panel suggested that the current incentives had been in place for some time and were clearly not incentive enough people to move homes. Officers acknowledged that the incentives were out of date and that there was a need to get a policy in place that set out what the revised offer was. This was being progressed by the team.

d.    The Panel questioned when the last time that the housing register was reviewed. It was suggested that the Council should write to everyone on the register to find about their circumstances and ascertain if they still needed to be on the register. In response, officers advised that it had been a while since the last time that this task had been undertaken, largely due to capacity. It was suggested that the best time to do this would be in conjunction with the development of a new allocations policy.  The Panel commented that they would like to make a formal recommendation to Cabinet, that when the review of the Housing Register was carried out that this should not be done as a solely online engagement exercise and that conducting face-to-face sessions in libraries should also be part of the process. (Action).

e.    In response to a question, officers advised that they had been looking at what rightsizing incentives other boroughs had been offering to tenants.

f.     The Panel sought assurances about the extent to which the condition of houses being offered to those who wished to rightsized was considered, officers replied that anyone under-occupying was automatically put into Band-A and that should theoretically give them more choice, but it was acknowledged that with the housing shortage it wouldn’t necessarily work out that way. Officers acknowledged the need to take account of the state of the property being offered and having someone to support them through the process.

g.    The Panel sought assurances about split tenancies, for example when a family had adult children. Officers advised that this was something that was being looked at from a policy perspective.

h.    The Panel questioned the extent to which the Housing building target (1592) would be affected by NPPF changes announced by the new government. In response, officers advised that there were no immediate changes to the housing target as the new announcement related to a consultation on changing the National Planning Policy Framework. Any changes to housing targets would have to be reflected in a revised London Plan.

i.      In relation to a question about the expectation that the current target would be met, officers advised that the number of completions in recent years was: 2021/22 – 1503; 2022/23 – 911; 2024/25 – 1189. It was expected that the number of completions in the current year would be supplemented by 500 new council homes. Officers acknowledged that without changes to the regulatory environment, such as grey build sites, meeting an increased housing target would be challenging.

j.      In response to a question, officers gave assurances that the Planning Service was performing well and that this wasn’t the cause of a bottleneck. The major factor was around market factors and problems with the economy more generally.

k.    The Panel queried whether the authority was looking at introducing special design codes to supplement the local plan.  In response, officers advised that that there was one in place in South Tottenham relating to upward housing extensions, but that there was no immediate plans to introduce other SDCs. The service’s focus was on updating the Local Plan.

*Clerk’s note - 19:00 hrs – Cllr Diakides joined the meeting at this point*

l.      The Panel queried what support was offered to people who wanted to move out-of-borough. In response, officers advised that this was something that was done in the borough through offering incentives. It was suggested that the key to success was having a flexible offer and being able to support the tenant through the different stages of the process. It was acknowledged that more could be done to promote this offer and the incentives. It was commented that there was a degree of overlap between these schemes and mutual exchanges but in general they were separate. In response to a follow-up, officers advised that there was a dedicated under-occupation officer who would assist with right-sizing moves. More general exchange queries would be supported by the relevant tenancy officer.

m.  The Chair queried the new allocations policy and asked for an outline of what some of the key trade-offs were likely to be. In response officers put forward the following areas:

·         Meeting the housing needs of residents versus the high costs of housing some people.

·         Supporting existing social tenants versus those who are not existing social tenants who also need housing.

·         Supporting residents who have been on the housing register for a long time versus those with more pressing needs.

·         Immediate needs versus long-term needs

n.    Officers advised that there had been an exercise with dedicated focus groups with individuals on the housing register. Officers emphasised that the policy was still in draft stage at present. The Panel agreed to have an item on the Allocations policy at a future meeting, once there was  a draft policy to scrutinise. (Action: Philip).

o.    In response to a follow-up, officers set out that households in Temporary Accommodation and households in severe overcrowding would both be Band-B and their allocation would be determined by length of time of the housing register. Officers commented that there was also a discussion to be had around how to band families who are overcrowded in the private sector. Ultimately, the underlying problem was that there was not enough housing in the borough.

p.    The Panel questioned what was the state of the Homelessness Service after it was brought back in-house. In response, officers advised that the service was only transferred over to the ALMO in 2015 and that prior to that Haringey was one of the leading London boroughs in this area. There were no particular issues with the Homelessness service when it was brought back in-house.

q.    The Panel related a couple of specific cases where an 8 person family was being housed in a 2 bedroom property and that in both cases these families were below Band-A. In response, officers acknowledged that this was an illustrative example of how big the problem was in Haringey. Cases of severe overcrowding, which was defined as being overcrowded by 2 or more bedrooms, were currently allocated as being Band-B. In addition to building more homes, the Council was also seeking to acquire more properties through the Haringey Community Benefit society in order to increase the housing supply.

r.     Officers set out that the average wait time for a Band-B family in 2022/23 was 10 years and 5 months and that this had increased in 2023/24 to 10 years and 10 months.

s.    In response to a questions around voids, officers set out that the HRA Business Plan set out an expectation that the expected void rate would be 1% or around 150 per year. It was noted that last year there was a higher level of voids than the service would have liked and so they increased it to 2%. Officers set out that they were expecting 200 new voids to come through the Neighbourhood Moves scheme in addition to the churn from general needs housing stock.

t.     The Panel enquired about the industrial action being taken by repairs staff and the extent to which there was a resolution on the horizon. In response, officers advised that the Council had made an offer to members of its Red Book scheme, but that offer had not been accepted. Internal discussions were ongoing but there was no progress to date. Officers emphasised the organisation’s position as needing to be fair to all employees. In relation to a follow-up question, officers advised that ACAS had some limited involvement in the dispute to date. Officers also set out that there was no risk to the Council’s GLA good work accreditation from the ongoing industrial dispute.

u.    Cllr Bevan commented that he would like to see all those on the housing register be written to, at the same time as the allocations policy was updated.

v.    A Member of the Panel raised concerns about recent cases involving residents having their TA Travelodge bookings cancelled at no notice and being turned out on to the street. It was suggested that there was an issue with the Council maxing its credit facilities as well as problems with admin problems in processing these payments.  In response, officers advised that use of Travelodges was very much a last resort due to their unsuitability for long-term stays. There were currently around a dozen households in Travelodges. Officers agreed to look into the specific case outside of the meeting if the Member sent them the details. It was agreed to get a written response from the AD for Housing Demand on the possible wider admin/credit issues. (Action: Philip/Sara Sutton).  

w.   The Panel queried the extent to which the Council had discretion when it came to intermediate housing. In response, officers advised that the Council was in the process of drafting an intermediate housing policy, which set out maximum rent thresholds per household based funding levels. The levels were £60k for intermediate rent and £90k for shared ownership. Officers advised that planning policy on intermediate housing was set at the national and London level, through the NPPF and the London Plan. It was noted that both of these documents were due to be updated going forward and so there was an opportunity to influence planning policy in this area.

x.    The Panel sought assurances that everything was being done to reduce the pressures on the housing register and that consideration was being given to how to improve the incentives to people to right-size. In response, officers advised that everything was being done that could be and that officers recognised the importance of increasing housing supply in the borough. The AD for Housing advised that his team were looking to double the number of acquisitions and were also exploring temporary modular housing units.

RESOLVED

That the report was noted.